If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyesAnd clever in their own sight! Isaiah 5:20-21 NASB

Nothing. He was a temp. He came in after the scandal and was scheduled to step down in June. The odds on him knowing anything useful are somewhere between slim and none, so he has nothing to keep his mouth shut about.

Originally Posted by Adam Wood

So Obama fires someone who had absolutely nothing to do with this at all (the guy didn't even start until last November, when all of this was already over anyway). Everyone act surprised at the cover-up and complete lack of competence.

Someone wake me up when they finally drag Axelrod in front of a Congressional committee hearing. It's plainly obvious that he's the one who is ultimately behind this anyway.

Axelrod has no legal authority within the administration. Even if it was his idea, it was the elected officials and their subordinates in the civil service who acted on it, and they are the ones who must be held accountable.

This is where the scandal will grow legs. First, we know that this came from much higher up in the IRS, and it wasn't just one office doing the scrutiny. The persons responsible are going to face jail time, unless Holder pulls the ultimate obstruction and stonewalls the investigation, but the moment that he orders an FBI agent to stand down, he's put himself at real risk. And, since Holder just screwed over the AP, he cannot count on the same level of press protection that he's gotten used to. A lot of the media feel betrayed by him, and they will not cut him the same slack that they used to.

Now, given the sheer volume of scandals, it would be surprising if there were not some fallout within the administration, but impeachment of Obama is probably a bridge too far. What we should expect is for those senate Democrats who were clamoring for increased IRS scrutiny of conservative groups to have their words come back to haunt them in the midterm elections. Chuck Schumer even went so far as to send a letter to the IRS last year, demanding it, and it was cosigned by Senators Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken. The money line is this one:

“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.”

Max Baucus sent his own letter to the IRS, demanding the same thing, but signed it as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which added more emphasis to his request. He is now among those most "outraged" by the attacks (he was also one of the architects of Obamacare, but now sees it as a "train wreck"). Baucus has announced that he will hold hearings on this. Here's the full text of his letter:

The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over revenue matters, and the Committee is responsible for conducting oversight of the administration of the federal tax system, including matters involving tax-exempt organizations. The Committee has focused extensively over the past decade on whether tax–exempt groups have been used for lobbying or other financial or political gain.

The central question examined by the Committee has been whether certain charitable or social welfare organizations qualify for the tax-exempt status provided under the Internal Revenue Code.

Recent media reports on various 501(c)(4) organizations engaged in political activity have raised serious questions about whether such organizations are operating in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.

The law requires that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4), (c)(5) or (c)(6) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization.

If it is determined the primary purpose of the 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organization is political campaign activity the tax exemption for that nonprofit can be terminated.

Even if political campaign activity is not the primary purpose of a 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organization, it must notify its members of the portion of dues paid due to political activity or pay a proxy tax under Section 6033(e).

Also, tax-exempt organizations and their donors must not engage in private inurement or excess benefit transactions. These rules prevent private individuals or groups from using tax-exempt organizations to benefit their private interests or to profit from the tax-exempt organization’s activities.

A September 23 New York Times article entitled “Hidden Under a Tax-Exempt Cloak, Private Dollars Flow” described the activities of the organization Americans for Job Security. An Alaska Public Office Commission investigation revealed that AJS, organized as an entity to promote social welfare under 501(c)(6), fought development in Alaska at the behest of a “local financier who paid for most of the referendum campaign.” The Commission report said that “Americans for Job Security has no other purpose other than to cover money trails all over the country.” The article also noted that “membership dues and assessments ... plunged to zero before rising to $12.2 million for the presidential race.”

A September 16 Time Magazine article examined the activities of Washington D.C. based 501(c)(4) groups planning a “$300 million … spending blitz” in the 2010 elections. The article describes a group transforming itself into a nonprofit under 501(c)(4) of the tax code, ensuring that they would not have to “publically disclose any information about its donors.”

These media reports raise a basic question: Is the tax code being used to eliminate transparency in the funding of our elections – elections that are the constitutional bedrock of our democracy? They also raise concerns about whether the tax benefits of nonprofits are being used to advance private interests.

With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in election contests by tax-exempt entities, it is time to take a fresh look at current practices and how they comport with the Internal Revenue Code’s rules for nonprofits.

I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to examine whether they are operated for the organization’s intended tax exempt purpose and to ensure that political campaign activity is not the organization’s primary activity. Specifically you should examine if these political activities reach a primary purpose level – the standard imposed by the federal tax code – and if they do not, whether the organization is complying with the notice or proxy tax requirements of Section 6033(e). I also request that you or your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations to determine whether they are acting as conduits for major donors advancing their own private interests regarding legislation or political campaigns, or are providing major donors with excess benefits.

Possible violation of tax laws should be identified as you conduct this study.

Please report back to the Finance Committee as soon as possible with your findings and recommended actions regarding this matter.

Based on your report I plan to ask the Committee to open its own investigation and/or to take appropriate legislative action.

Sincerely,

Max Baucus

Chairman

The first order of business for Republicans on the committee should be to read his letter into the record and demand to know why he cited two examples of conservative groups, based on reports by liberal media outlets, and if it was his intent to use the tax code to suppress political dissent from his opposition. If this was not the case, why did he not cite evidence of leftwing groups which were engaged in far more pervasive violations of the tax code? Did the IRS present a report to him as directed by his letter? What were the contents of that report? If Baucus doesn't recuse himself, then he has a huge conflict of interest.

Axelrod has no legal authority within the administration. Even if it was his idea, it was the elected officials and their subordinates in the civil service who acted on it, and they are the ones who must be held accountable.

Oh, I know he has no legal authority. I also know that he was put in charge of Obama's re-election campaign about the same time that this IRS business started. I have very little doubt that he started paying visits to IRS offices to make it clear what those people needed to do in order to make sure that they kept their jobs.

The man is a snake. This was, without any real doubt, part of a campaign strategy. Alone, it wouldn't win an election, but in concert with a bunch of other things, it would make just enough difference to make sure that Obama got his message out and conservatives didn't. I certainly give him credit for orchestrating a couple of successful campaign strategies: from knocking Hillary off the stump by placing the story that she claimed that Obama was a Muslim to turning 2012 from a pure fiscal issues campaign into almost entirely a social issues campaign, he certainly does his machinations well. This is, after all, the man who basically invented astroturfing as it's known today.

Even if it were announced publicly tomorrow that he was personally responsible for it all, though, you're correct that he cannot be held accountable.

WASHINGTON (AP) — As second top Internal Revenue Service official has announced plans to leave the agency amid the controversy over the targeting of tea party groups.

An internal IRS memo says Joseph Grant, commissioner of the agency’s tax exempt and government entities division, will retire June 3. Grant joins Steven Miller, who was forced to resign as acting IRS commissioner on Wednesday.

As part of his duties, Grant oversaw the IRS division that targeted tea party groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.

WASHINGTON (AP) — As second top Internal Revenue Service official has announced plans to leave the agency amid the controversy over the targeting of tea party groups.

An internal IRS memo says Joseph Grant, commissioner of the agency’s tax exempt and government entities division, will retire June 3. Grant joins Steven Miller, who was forced to resign as acting IRS commissioner on Wednesday.

As part of his duties, Grant oversaw the IRS division that targeted tea party groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.

True. So what you do is give the school staff the power to stop whatever happens. If it's verbal teasing, you give them the power to tell the kids to stop it. If it's rock throwing, you give them the...